Skip to main content

Full text of "Historical estimates of the Canadian labour force."

See other formats


Historical Estimat 



Canadian Labour Force 



ANK T. DENTON AND SYLVIA OSTR 






!• 



I 




Historical Estimates 
of the Canadian Labour Force 



by 
Frank T. Denton and Sylvia Ostry 



ONE OF A SERIES OF LABOUR FORCE STUDIES 

in the 

1961 CENSUS MONOGRAPH PROGRAMME 



DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS 
OTTAWA, CANADA 
1967 



Published under the Authority of 
The Minister of Trade and Commerce 



©Crown Copyrights reserved 

Available by mail from the Queen's Printer, Ottawa, 

and at the following Canadian Government bookshops: 

HALIFAX: 1737 Barrington St. 

OTTAWA: Daly Building, corner Mackenzie Ave. and Rideau St. 

TORONTO: 221 Yonge St. 

MONTREAL: Mtema-Vie Building, 1182 St. Catherine St. West 

WINNIPEG: Mall Center Bldg., 499 Portage Ave. 

VANCOUVER: 657 Granville St. 

or through your bookseller 

Price: 75 cents Catalogue No. MS 99-549/1967 

ROGER DUHAMEL, F.R.S.C. 

Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery 

Ottawa, Canada 

1967 



Foreword 



The Canadian Censuses constitute a rich source of information about 
individuals and their families, extending over many years. The census data 
are used widely but it has proved to be worthwhile in Canada, as in some 
other countries, to supplement census statistical reports with analytical 
monographs on a number of selected topics. The 1931 Census was the 
basis of several valuable monographs but, for various reasons, it was 
impossible to follow this precedent with a similar programme until 1961. 
Moreover, the 1961 Census had two novel features. In the first place, it 
provided much new and more detailed data, particularly in such fields as 
income, internal migration and fertility, and secondly, the use of an 
electronic computer made possible a great variety of tabulations on which 
more penetrating analytical studies could be based. 

The purpose of the 1961 Census Monograph Programme is to provide a 
broad analysis of social and economic phenomena in Canada. Although the 
monographs concentrate on the results of the 1961 Census, they are supple- 
mented by data from previous censuses and by statistical material from 
other sources. The present Study is one in a Series on the Canadian 
labour force. In addition to these Labour Force Studies, monographs will 
be published on marketing, agriculture, education, fertility, urban develop- 
ment, income, immigration, and internal migration. 

I should like to express my appreciation to the universities that 
have made it possible for members of their staff to contribute to this 
Programme, to authors within the Dominion Bureau of Statistics who have 
put forth extra effort in preparing their studies, and to a number of other 
members of DBS staff who have given assistance. The Census Monograph 
Programme is considered desirable not only because the analysis by the 
authors throws light on particular topics but also because it provides 
insight into the adequacy of existing data and guidance in planning the 
content and tabulation programmes of future censuses. Valuable help in 
designing the Programme was received from a committee of Government 
officials and university professors. In addition, thanks are extended to the 
various readers, experts in their fields, whose comments were of consider- 
able assistance to the authors. 



Although the monographs have been prepared at the request of and 
published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, responsibility for the 
analyses and conclusions is that of the individual authors. 



DOMINION STATISTICIAN. 



IV 



Preface 



This is the first of a series of studies dealing with selected aspects 
of the labour force in Canada as revealed, in the main, by the 1961 and 
earlier Censuses. The present study provides new historical estimates of 
the labour force on a definitionally consistent basis. These estimates will 
be used for purposes of analysis in some of the later studies in the series. 
We wish to thank members of the Census Division of the Dominion 
Bureau of Statistics, in particular Mrs. A.J. Kempster and Mr. A.H. 
LeNeveu, for their co-operation and assistance in providing data and 
constructive criticism. We are most grateful, too, for the helpful comments 
of Mr. D.J. Bailey, Director, Labour Division, Mr. N.L. McKellar, Director, 
Central Classification Research and Development Staff, and Mr. W.A. 
Nesbitt, Assistant Director, Special Surveys Division. The usual obser- 
vation, with respect to the authors' responsibility for error, of course 
applies. 



Frank T. Denton, 
Director, Econometric Research, DBS 

Sylvia Ostry, 

Director, Special Manpower Studies and 

Consultation, DBS 



OTTAWA. 1967 



Table of Contents 



Page 

FOREWORD iii 

PREFACE v 

LIST OF TABLES viii 

1. INTRODUCTION 1 

The Gainfully Occupied 1 

The Labour Force 5 

2. ESTIMATES OF THE LABOUR FORCE BY AGE AND SEX, 1921-1961 9 

General Methodology 11 

The Gainfully Occupied in 1951 and the Conversion Ratios 12 

3. ESTIMATES OF THE LABOUR FORCE BY SEX, 1901 AND 1911 15 

4. ESTIMATES OF THE TOTAL LABOUR FORCE, 1851-1891 17 

TABLES 19 

APPENDICES 31 

A. ESTIMATION OF ADJUSTMENT GROUPS 32 

B. THE REVISED UNITED STATES LABOUR FORCE DEFINITION . . 35 

C. DECENNIAL CENSUS QUESTIONS, 1871-1961 37 

D. LABOUR FORCE SURVEY QUESTIONS 48 



Vll 



List of Tables 



Page 
Table 1 — Adjustment Groups for Use in Estimating 1951 Gainfully Occupied, 

by Age and Sex 20 

Table 2 — Calculation of Conversion Ratios, by Age and Sex, Based on 1951 

Data 21 

Table 3 — Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 

1921 (excluding Newfoundland) 22 

Table 4 — Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 

1931 (excluding Newfoundland) 23 

Table 5 — Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 

1941 (excluding Newfoundland) 24 

Table 6 — Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1951 (excluding 

Newfoundland) 25 

Table 7 — Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1961 (excluding 

Newfoundland) 26 

Table 8 — Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1951 (including 

Newfoundland) 27 

Table 9 — Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1961 (including 

Newfoundland) 28 

Table 10 — Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Sex, 1901 

and 1911 (excluding Newfoundland) 29 

Table 11 - Total Labour Force, 1851-1961 (excluding Newfoundland) 29 



J. Introduction 

Prior to November 1945, when the Labour Force Survey commenced, 
the only comprehensive estimates of the economically active population in 
Canada were the measures provided by the decennial censuses. 1 The 
definition of the economically active was, however, based on different 
criteria in the censuses before 1951 than in those of 1951 and 1961. This 
study presents a series of census-date estimates of the economically 
active population adjusted to a consistent definitional base. Before 
describing the method of estimation and presenting the statistics them- 
selves, it is necessary to discuss the two concepts of the economically 
active which have been used in the censuses— the gainfully occupied and 
the labour force. 

THE GAINFULLY OCCUPIED 

In the 1941 and earlier censuses of Canada, a count of gainful 
workers (10 years and over prior to 1941; 14 years and over in 1941) was 
secured in answer to a question on occupation. Thus the 1941 Census 
defined gainful occupation 2 as "one by which the person who pursues it 
earns money or in which he assists in the production of goods". Children 
working at home on general household duties or chores, or at odd times at 
other work, were not to be reported as having an occupation. Similarly, 
women doing housework in their own homes without salary or wages were 
to be reported as "homemaker". The enumerator was instructed to make an 
entry in the "Occupation" column for every person of 14 years of age and 
over, the entry being one of the following: (a) the chief occupation of every 
gainfully occupied person; (b) retired; (c) homemaker; (d) student; (e) none. 

Further, the enumeration instructions went on to explain each of the 
entries (b) to (e). Thus "retired" was defined to include "persons who on 
account of old age, permanent physical disability or otherwise are no 



However, it should be noted that during the Second World War the Department of Labour, 
in co-operation with other government agencies, developed estimates of the total econom- 
ically active population and its main components which were published at least annually 
by the Wartime Information Board in its bulletins, Canada at War. Cf. "Recapitulation 
Issue", No. 45, Wartime Information Board, Ottawa, 1945. 

2 

The description in the text of the gainful worker concept as used in the 1941 Census is 
taken from Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Instructions to Commissioners and Enumerators, 
Eighth Census of Canada, 1941, pp. 47-50. 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 

longer following a gainful occupation. Only persons who at some time had 
a gainful occupation and are no longer employed nor seeking employment 
shall be reported as 'retired'." 

"Homemaker" referred to "a woman doing housework in her own 
home, without wages or salary, and having no other employment but being 
responsible for the domestic management of the home". But if a woman, 
in addition to doing housework in her own home, "regularly earns money at 
some other occupation, whether carried on at home or outside, then that 
occupation (should) be entered. . . .and not 'homemaker' ". (Emphasis 
added.) Moreover, in the case of a farm woman, the entry should be "farm 
labourer" only if she were working regularly and most of the time at outdoor 
farm work, such as caring for livestock or poultry on a farm operated by 
someone else. 

"Student" was defined as "every person, 14 years of age and over, 
regularly attending school or college or receiving private tuition. Even if 
earning small sums of money after school or on Saturdays as messenger, 
newsboy, etc., he or she shall be enumerated as a student. Only when the 
person is not attending school and is employed most of the day at some 
occupation, or is wholly assisting his or her parents or any other person 
on a farm, in a store, etc., will he or she be reported as having a gainful 
occupation." (Emphasis added.) 

An entry of "none" or "no occupation" was possible in three cases: 
(1) for adult dependants such as invalids at home or in institutions, 
persons with private means, etc., the entry should be "none"; (2) young 
persons 14 to 24 years who have never had a gainful occupation and were 
not then attending school were to be asked if they were seeking employ- 
ment—if the answer were in the affirmative, the entry was to be "none 
(yes)"; (3) if the response to the foregoing question were negative, the entry 
was to be "none (no)". 

In earlier censuses, the definition of a gainful occupation was very 
similar to that of 1941. The count referred to persons 10 years of age and 
over, instead of 14. Both the 1931 and 1921 enumerator instruction manuals 
warned that a person who was temporarily unemployed might state that he 
had no occupation but the enumerator should record the occupation followed 
when the individual was regularly employed. 

It is clear from the foregoing exposition of the instructions provided 
to the census enumerators that the definition of the gainfully occupied 
centred on occupation and, moreover, that occupation was viewed as a 



THE GAINFULLY OCCUPIED 

"characteristic" of an individual, a characteristic akin to, say, language, 
years of schooling or immigrant status. Quite logically, no period of 
reference was specified since a time reference would have implied an 
activity orientation. Nevertheless, since occupation is clearly not simply a 
population characteristic (in the same sense as are age and sex or even 
language, education or immigrant status), some notion of activity had to be 
introduced as a secondary consideration and the gainfully occupied concept 
implied (though it did not specify) customary or habitual activity. 1 The 
reference period was thus open-ended but it was some period considerably 
longer than, for instance, the week preceding the date of enumeration.' 

Given these two criteria for distinguishing the gainfully occupied- 
occupation as a population characteristic and customary or habitual 
activity— certain groups will be excluded from the total count of gainful 
workers. Thus, persons seeking jobs for the first time have no occupation 
and hence would not be considered gainful workers. (See above, for specific 
reference to young persons, 14 to 24.) Further, some individuals whose 
work is part-time, intermittent or casual might not be included since they 
would not satisfy the customary or habitual activity criterion. On the other 
hand, a person not currently engaged in gainful employment (or in seeking 
such employment) might well be included among the gainfully occupied 
on the basis of a prior occupational attachment of long duration. (Cf. 
footnote 3 : the special reference to the unemployed in the 1931 and 1941 
Censuses.) What is important to note here is that the concept of the 
gainfully occupied is not sufficiently precise to ensure that certain 
"marginal" groups will necessarily be consistently enumerated, either 



Although, as has been pointed out, the definition of the gainfully occupied did not in- 
clude any explicit reference to activity, there seems little doubt that those in charge of the 
1931 and 1941 Census operations in DBS were aware of the relevance of activity and, to some 
extent, of the distinction between customary and current activity. This has been made 
clear to us in discussions with Mr. AJ-i.LeNeveu (formerly Chief of the Current Population 
Estimates, Analysis and Citizenship Section of the Census Division) who has kindly 
permitted us to read some of hlB correspondence with the staff of the Works Progress 
Administration in Washington during the 1930s. See also 1936 Census of the Prairie 
Provinces, Table 14, which distinguishes between usual occupation and occupation 
followed on the census date. None the less, the core of the gainfully occupied concept 
was occupational attachment and even the distinction between "current" and "customary" 
was couched in terms of occupation and not activity. 

In order to provide more comprehensive information on unemployment, in both the 1931 
and 1941 Censuses, a question on activity on the census day was included. It is evident that 
the gainfully occupied concept per se is not appropriate to the measurement of unemployment. 
The question on unemployment was directed to wage earners only: "If a wage earner 
(employee), were you at work on Monday, June 1(2), 1931(1941)?". It was followed up: 
"It not, why not?". But possible answers to "why not?", such as "no job", "layoff", 
"holiday", "Illness", "accident", "strike or lockout" and "other", made It clear that 
unemployment was viewed in the same way aB occupation, i.e., as a characteristic of the 
person. The view that unemployment might be considered an activity— the act of testing the 
job market by looking for work— nowhere entered the conceptual framework. 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 

from census to census, or by different enumerators in any given census. 
Because occupation is not. simply a population characteristic and because 
customary activity is based on an unspecified and open-ended reference 
period, the boundary separating the gainfully occupied from the remainder 
of the adult population cannot be clearly drawn. 

Finally, the gainfully occupied concept tends to be associated with 
a particular view of labour supply. In this view the total labour supply of 
the economy is more a stable pool or stock of individuals growing pari 
passu with the adult population rather than expanding or contracting in 
response to changes in the economic and social environment. 1 The notion 
of a changing labour supply comes to mind more naturally in the context 
of a current and continuing measure of the economically active population 
and it is not surprising that it evolved in a more explicit form as a con- 
sequence of the adoption of recurring labour force surveys. If the econom- 
ically active population is measured only once every ten years and the 
measure is derived in conjunction with a total population count and by 
means of a classification criterion based primarily on a population 
characteristic— one among many other characteristics of the adult popu- 
lation—then the emphasis on a stable pool or stock of labour is a likely 
one. But the limitations of the "fixed-stock" viewpoint are sharply exposed 
in a period of rapid social or economic transformation, for example during a 
war or a severe economic crisis. The need for manpower statistics to pro- 
vide economic intelligence for government policy purposes stimulated the 



*If the economically active population is regarded as a stable pool of labour, then 
employment and unemployment must always move in opposite directions- It is of interestto 
note in this regard that the 1931 Census Monograph on Unemployment (contained in Cen- 
sus Vol. XIII) was a remarkably perceptive document. Thus, the authors observe that in 
Canada, during the 1920s, immigration and emigration movements affected the unemployment 
total and remark further: "This, of course, introduces a widely different concept of 
unemployment from that generally accepted, viz., that unemployment is merely the opposite 
of employment. Unemployment only partly declined with increasing employment. [As noticed], 
it also increased with increasing numbers of wage earners and decreased with decreasing 
numbers of wage earners. Immigration was no doubt accompanied by other inward movements 
into the ranks of wage earners— from farms, small owned establishments and from school; 
emigration was accompanied by return to these sources, so total immigration and emigration 
were only symptoms of more general movements. " (p. 15) Compare this statement, with its 
Insight into the changing supply of labour related to changing economic conditions, with 
the following view expressed by the National Industrial Conference Board In 1938: "The 
labor force [sic], viewed as a reservoir of potential workers having gainful occupations, 
must of necessity have an Inertia with respect to its size and growth. That is to say, 
the number of available persons on call plus the number engaged in remunerative pursuits 
does not fluctuate with business swings. Each year there is an outflow of workers from 
the force through emigration, death, retirement, physical disability and the like; but there 
is also an Inflow through immigration, increased age of young people, termination of edu- 
cation, increasing remunerative occupations for women and so forth. Underlying these 
flows in and out of the labor force are such basic factors as a changed standard of 
living, increased mechanization, population, age composition and growth". (Leonard 
Kuvin, Conference Board Bulletin, Vol. XII, No.8. July 30, 1938: cited in Gertrude 
Bancroft, The American Labor Force, Census Monograph Series, 1958, p. 185.) 



THE LABOUR FORCE 

adoption of the continuing sample survey technique and the labour force 
concept in the United States during the Great Depression of the 1930s. 
In Canada, the Labour Force Survey was initiated in 1945, the last year of 
the Second World War. 

THE LABOUR FORCE 

The chief (though not only) classification criterion of the labour 
force concept is current activity. Unlike the occupation question in the 
gainful worker scheme, the focus of the labour force schedule is not a 
population characteristic but an activity- the individual's activity with 
respect to the labour market during a specific reference period, namely the 
week preceding the week of enumeration. In order to point up the differences 
between the gainful worker and the labour force concepts, it is useful to 
review here the definition of the labour force used in the 1951 Census of 
Canada (Vol. IV). 

According to the 1951 Census, the civilian labour force is composed 
of that portion of the civilian non-institutional population 14 years of age 
and over who, during the week ending June 2, 1951, worked for pay or 
profit; had jobs but did not work; or did not have jobs and were seeking 
work. Each category was thus defined: — 

(a) Persons with jobs and at work: Those who did any work (during 
the reference week) for pay or profit or who did unpaid work 
which contributed to the running of a family farm or business 
operated by a member of the household. 

(b) Persons with jobs but not at work: Those who had jobs but did 
not work because of illness, bad weather, vacation, industrial 
dispute or temporary layoff with instructions to return within 
30 days of the time of being laid off. 

(c) Persons without jobs and looking for work: Those who, during the 
reference week, were without jobs and seeking work. This 
category also includes those who would have looked for work 
except that they were temporarily ill, were on indefinite or 
prolonged layoff, or believed that no work was available. 

The merit of the labour force concept is that one may reasonably 
assume it is possible to record an individual's activity, precisely defined, 
in an objective, consistent and accurate fashion. The main object of the 
labour force enumeration is to classify the adult population into three 
groups: the employed [categories (a) and (b) above], the unemployed 
[category (c)], and the non-labour force (the remainder of the adult 
population). It should be noted that the labour force itself is defined as 
the sum of the employed and the unemployed; the remainder of the adult 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 

population is not in the labour force. Thus the economically active are 
distinguished within the total population and the chief distinguishing 
criterion is current activity, specifically defined. 

Although current activity is the focus of the labour force concept, 
it is not the only classification criterion utilized nor is it consistently 
applied. The labour force definition and measurement technique were first 
developed in the United States within the framework of a national policy 
directed toward providing work-relief for the mass unemployment of the 
Great Depression. A count of the number of jobs required for the employable 
unemployed was the chief requirement of the labour force measure. Job 
attachment was, therefore, another and important criterion for classifying 
the adult population. In cases in which job attachment (or lack of it) and 
activity clearly coincide, few problems of definition or measurement arise. 
Thus persons working during the week clearly are "with jobs", i.e., 
job attachment is unequivocal and so is activity. Moreover, persons who 
did not work but were actively seeking work during the week are assumed 
to have no job attachment and to be engaged in the activity of seeking 
work. There remain two other groups of persons to be classified: 1 (a) 
those who have no activity but have a "firm" job attachment and (b) 
those who have no activity and no "firm" job attachment. 

The original labour force definition (developed in the United States 
for use in the 1940 Census of Population and in the recurring sample 
surveys of the population begun in March 1940) classed persons as 
employed if they had worked for one hour or more for pay or profit 2 during 
the week or if they had not worked because of vacation, illness, bad 
weather, industrial dispute of temporary layoff. Thus group (a) above, 
those who had no activity, were classed as employed on the basis of a 
presumed "firm" job attachment. The decision, made later, 5 to revise the 
definition of the employed to exclude those on temporary layoff clearly 
implied that the "degree" of job attachment of such individuals was 
considered less firm than that of the others in the group. It is evident that 



The possibility of an individual fitting into several work-status categories of the la- 
bour force necessitated the establishment of a chain of priorities so that mutually exclusive 
groups might be delineated. (In the monthly surveys, questions on the individual's primary 
and secondary activity during the reference week are asked.) The chain decided upon was: 
with job and at work; seeking; with job but not at work; non-labour force. Thus, for 
example, *an individual who was employed but absent from work all week and looking for 
work would be classified as unemployed. See Appendix B for a change in this priority 
under the new (January 1967) United States definition. 

The only exception was the unpaid family worker: a person who did unpaid work which 
contributed to the running of a farm or a business operated by a related member of the 
household. 

'Effective in February 1957 in the United States, and in September 1960 in Canada. 



THE LABOUR FORCE 

job attachment is a less precise, i.e., more "equivocal" criterion than is 
activity. 

Further, as described above, the labour force definition used in 
Canada classes as unemployed persons who had not worked an hour or 
more during the week and who had actively 1 sought work-thus satisfying 
the activity criterion-p/us those who had neither worked nor sought work 
but would have sought work except that they were temporarily ill, on 
temporary or indefinite layoff, or believed no work was available in their 
line or their community. This latter group, sometimes called the "inactive 
seekers", do not satisfy the activity criterion and, moreover, have varying 
degrees of job attachment, as was evidenced by the reclassification of the 
temporary layoffs from the employed to the unemployed category. Herein 
lies one of the major conceptual difficulties in the labour force measure. 
Once the activity criterion is abandoned, job attachment must bear the 
entire weight of classification as between the two main labour force 
categories, the employed and the unemployed. But job attachment is not 
an objectively precise criterion; the exact degree of job attachment may be 
a matter of debate. Moreover, once the activity criterion is no longer 
applicable and job attachment is nebulous or non-existent, there remains 
no objective means of distinguishing the unemployed from the remainder of 
the adult population. Group (b) referred to above— those who have no 
activity and no firm job attachment— may be either non-labour force or 
inactive seekers. The lack of job attachment, when it coincides with a 
lack of activity, provides no guide for distinguishing the boundary between 
the economically active and the remainder of the adult population. Inclusion 
or exclusion of the inactive seeker thus rests, au fond, on the respondent's 
subjective evaluation of labour market conditions. Thus with the labour 
force definition used today in Canada (and until very recently in the 
United States: see Appendix B) if the respondent volunteers the information 
that he would have sought work except for certain conditions, he is classed 
as unemployed and in the labour force. 2 Because in such cases the labour 



The meaning of the word "actively" was not explained in the definition of the labour 
force. In the Canadian Labour Force Survey Enumeration Manual, however, it is described as 
"making efforts to obtain a job or establish a business or professional practice, such 
efforts as registering at a government employment office, meeting with prospective em- 
ployers, placing or answering advertisements, writing letters of application or working 
without pay to gain experience". In the 1951 Census the enumeration instructions were 
identical; in the 1961 Census "working without pay to gain experience" was omitted. 
2 
Prior to July 1945 in the United States, the labour force schedule obtained the unem- 
ployment count by asking those who were not actively seeking work, "why not?". When 
this question was eliminated, the enumerator was instructed to class a person as unem- 
ployed only if he volunteered the information that he would have looked for work except 
for illness, prolonged layoff or the belief that none was available. The numbers of inactive 
seekers picked up with the new schedule were much fewer than with the previous schedule 
which asked "why not?". The Canadian survey, initiated in November 1945, has never 
includedthe question "why not?". 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 

force survey involves a reporting of attitudes and not of objective pheno- 
mena, a count which is consistent as among different surveys, different 
areas or different groups of individuals is much more difficult to achieve. 1 

While the labour force concept as described above does not provide 
a completely satisfactory means of clearly and unequivocally defining the 
economically active population (and, in practice, of distinguishing it, as 
defined, from the remainder of the adult population), it is preferable to 
the gainful worker concept because currenr activity (its chief criterion 
for definition) is more susceptible to objective enumeration than is habitual 
occupation viewed as a characteristic of an individual. The historical 
series presented below were estimated, insofar as was possible, on the 
basis of the labour force definition of the economically active. 



l Thus, for example, the very large difference between the 1961 Census unemployment 
count and that of the monthly Labour Force Surveys closest to the census date (the Census 
rate was 3.9%: the average May— June Survey estimate, 6.2%) illustrates how sensitive the 
labour force concept is to variation in the quality and specific practices of enumeration. 



2. Estimates of the Labour Force 
by Age and Sex, 1921-196V 

Although the application of the gainfully occupied and labour force 
definitions will produce different counts of the economically active popu- 
lation, it is evident from the foregoing discussion that these differences 
will be much more marked for some groups in the population— for example, 
younger workers and women— than for others, in particular, prime-age males. 
For this reason it is desirable, wherever possible, to adjust separately 
the gainful worker counts for specific age groups of males and females. 
This method of adjustment, however, is ruled out for data prior to 1921 
because of inadequate age detail in the 1901 and 1911 Census gainful 
worker statistics and more stringent deficiencies in the pre-1901 data. 
The present Section, then, deals with the derivation of the decennial 
labour force estimates, by age and sex, for the period from 1921 to 1961. 
The next Section describes the conversion of the gainful worker totals, 
by sex, for 1901 and 1911 and the final Section discusses the estimates of 
total labour force for 1851 to 1891. 

In securing a series of comparable decennial labour force statistics 
for the period 1921 to 1961, the problem is not simply one of adjusting 
the gainful worker counts of the 1921, 1931 and 1941 Censuses. In 1951 and 
1961 the censuses undertook to measure the labour force but the two 
censuses were not identical in their approach; the labour force questions 
differed sufficiently in wording and sequence 2 that the resulting measures 
were not entirely comparable.' Strictly speaking, then, two adjustments 
are required if a consistent series is to be produced for this period: (1) the 
1951 and 1961 Census labour force measures must be adjusted to secure 



Cf. Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Canadian Labour Force Estimates, 1931~1945, 
Reference Paper No. 23 (revised), Ottawa, 1957. This Reference Paper presents annual 
estimates of the labour force by sex, from 1931 to 1945, and for both sexes combined 
from 1921 to 1930. The method of adjusting the gainfully occupied census data was 
somewhat different from that used here. It should' be noted, however, that adjustments 
were made for both new seekers and unpaid female workers on farms. 

2 See Appendix C 

For a number of examples of non-comparability of 1951 and 1961 Census labour force 
data see 1961 Census ot Canada, Vol. 7, Part 1, Bulletin 7.1-12, "The Canadian Labour 
Force". 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 

comparability with each other, and (2) the census gainful worker counts 
for 1921, 1931 and 1941 must be converted to labour force estimates 
comparable to the 1951 and 1961 statistics. 

An examination of the 1951 and 1961 Census labour force data 
revealed that the task involved in adjusting these two sets of statistics to 
a comparable base would be difficult and time-consuming, yielding, at best, 
only very approximate results. An acceptable alternative procedure, which 
was adopted, was to use the Labour Force Survey sample statistics for the 
week closest to the Census reference week in 1951 and 1961. l This 
decision was also influenced by the fact that the monthly surveys provide 
a reasonably consistent series of labour force statistics for the period 
from 1945 to the present and thus these historical estimates could be 
linked to a readily available source of current information. 

The decision to use the survey statistics in 1951 and 1961 neces- 
sitated adjusting the gainful worker counts in 1921, 1931 and 1941 to a 
Survey rather than a Census basis. There seemed, moreover, to be yet 
another argument in favour of this method of adjustment which is perhaps 
best expressed in a quotation from the introduction to the Labour Force 
Volume (Vol. IV) of the 1951 Census: "Enumeration of the whole population 
for census purposes presents problems which are not encountered in 
continuing sample surveys. The current labour force surveys ask relatively 
few questions, mainly on one topic, and, being taken frequently, often 
retain the same enumerator for several successive surveys. For these 
reasons, the current survey can probe more deeply in order to bring out 
marginal elements in the Labour Force. Thus [for example] , the current 
survey reported more family members whose principal activity was going to 
school, keeping house, etc., as having done some unpaid family work on a 
farm or in a business during the week ending June 2, 1951, than were 
reported in the Census." Since it is precisely the marginal elements in 
the labour force which are also most likely to be omitted from a gainful 
worker count, adjusting the gainfully occupied total on a Census labour 
force basis would tend to understate the extent of the difference between 
the gainfully occupied and the labour force measures. 1 



In 195 1 the Labour Force Survey reference date in June was identical to the Census 
reference date (week ending June 2) but in 1961 the June reference date for the Survey 
was the week ending June 17th while the Census used a "Blidlng" reference date (the 
week preceding the actual visit of the enumerator) which extended over the first three 
weeks in June, but which was concentrated (at leaBt for urban areas) on the first week or 
two. Thus, for purposes of comparison, it was decided to use the May— June averages of 
the Survey data. 

Cf. Stanley Lebergott, Manpower in Economic Growth, The American Record Since 
1800, New York, 1964, Chapter 9. For largely the same reasons as presented here, Lebergott 
also converts his historical data to a Survey rather than a Census base (pp. 357 ff.) 

10 



LABOUR FORCE BY AGE AND SEX, 1921*1961 



GENERAL METHODOLOGY 



The general method used to adjust the gainful worker statistics 
for 1921, 1931 and 1941 was first to calculate a separate "conversion 
ratio" for each of a number of specified age and sex groups in the econom- 
ically active population, using 1951 data, and then to multiply the gainful 
worker figure for each comparable age-sex group in 1921, 1931 and 1941 
by the ratio for the group. 1 The conversion ratios were defined as 

Survey L.F. ^ wn ere Survey L.F. is the number of persons, in the age-sex 
Census G.O. 

group, who were enumerated in the Labour Force Survey of June 2, 1951, 

plus the number in the Armed Services and an estimate of the number of 

Indians on reserves with a labour force attachment. 2 The term Census 

G.O. refers to an estimate of the number of workers, of a given age-sex 

group, who would have been enumerated in 1951 if the census of that year 

had utilized the gainful worker concept. The method by which the gainfully 

occupied estimates for 1951 were derived is described in what follows. 3 



This method involves the use of a uniform set of conversion ratios for 1921, 1931 and 
1941. It is not unreasonable to assume that the proportion of various "marginal" groups 
in the labour force varied over this period, not only because of long-run changes in the 
industrial and occupational composition of the labour force, but also because the different 
censuses were taken at different stages of the business cycle. There are, however, 
no adequate data available for adjusting the conversion ratios to take account of underlying 
changes in the economic and social environment. Thus, estimating different ratios for each 
census would have involved making a large number of quite arbitrary assumptions based on 
intuitive "guesses" and scattered pieces of inadequate information. The procedure 
chosen, while admittedly rough, was considered preferable and in all probability results in 
adjustment in the right direction, although not necessarily of the correct amount, at each 
date. 

The participation rate of Indians on reserves was assumed equal to that of the rest of 
the population of the same age and sex. Unpublished data from both the 1951 and 1961 
Censuses suggest much lower age- sex specific activity rates for Indians. It seems 
probable, however, that the main reason for these relatively low rates was that the 
censuses failed to enumerate most "inactive seekers" — a group which would be par- 
ticularly important in the case of the Indian reserve population. Since the method of 
adjustment involves revision to a Survey and not a Census base, it was decided to use 
the higher rates for Indians. In either case, however, the effect on the overall figures is 
very small. 

It should be noted that Indians on reserves were excluded from census counts of the 
economically active population in 1901, 1921 and 1951, but were included in 1911, 1931, 
1941 and 1961. Members of the Armed Services were included in every census from 1901 to 
1961. In 1941 a number of tables showed the total gainfully occupied including all persons 
on Active Service, as well as the total not including persons on Active Service. Indians 
on reserves and members of the Armed Services are excluded from the monthly Labour 
Force Survey. 

The conversion ratios may be thought of as the resultant of two separate steps, 
summarized as follows: 

Survey G.O. Survey L.F. Survey L.F. 



Census G.O. Survey G.O. Census G.O. 

The first step involves adjusting the gainfully occupied from a Census basis to a Survey 
basis; the second involves adjusting the Survey-based gainfully occupied figure to the 
actual Survey labour force figure. 

11 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 

THE GAINFULLY OCCUPIED IN 1951 AND THE CONVERSION RATIOS 

A comparison of the gainfully occupied and labour force definitions 
has shown that certain "marginal" groups in the economically active 
population are likely to be omitted from a gainful worker count but should 
be included in a labour force enumeration. The procedure used to estimate 
the gainfully occupied total for each age-sex group in 1951 therefore con- 
sisted of estimating the numbers of workers in specified marginal labour 
force categories and then subtracting these estimates from the Census 
labour force count. The resulting statistics are assumed to represent the 
numbers of workers who would have been enumerated if the 1951 Census 
had used the gainful worker rather than the labour force definition of the 
economically active population. 

A careful consideration of the Census and Survey data in the light 
of the conceptual analysis presented above suggested that four marginal 
groups were likely to be excluded in significant numbers from a gainful 

worker count and should therefore be allowed for in this adjustment proce- 
dure: 

(1) Male and female "new seekers": Persons who had never worked and 
were looking for their first jobs. As noted earlier, such persons were 
specifically excluded from gainful worker counts. 

(2) Students: Males 1 in the age group 14-24 whose primary activity during 
the reference week was attending school but who also worked for an 
hour or more during that week. The gainful worker count excluded all 
full-time students even if they worked after school or on weekends. 

(3) Female unpaid family workers in agriculture: The gainful worker 
concept did specifically include women who, in addition to their 
household activity, were working regularly at outdoor farm work in a 
"no pay" capacity. However, the emphasis on regular farm work of a 
specific type would result in the enumeration of a lesser number of 
female unpaid family workers on farms under a gainful worker rather 
than a labour force definition. 2 



Females were excluded from this adjustment group because during the historical pe- 
riod under consideration it is highly unlikely that many young girls, in regular school attend- 
ance, also worked at part-time or weekend jobs. The kinds of jobs which today are popular 
with teen-age schoolgirls or young university women — baby-sitting, part-time sales or 
clerical jobs, etc.— were not widely available during this period, nor was it considered, 
as it clearly is today, socially "proper" for such young women to work in paid employment. 
(Certainly, in the period before 1941, a very high proportion of women in the age group 
14—24 who were still full-time students would have come from middle-class families.) 

2 
The Labour Force Survey of June 1946, conducted at the same time as the Census of 

the Prairie Provinces, recorded a female agricultural labour force of 103,000 as compared 

with a census gainful worker total of 8,000. 

12 



GAINFULLY OCCUPIED AND THE CONVERSION RATIOS 

(4) Females who worked on a part-time basis in non-agricultural industry: 

These women were likely to have been excluded wholly or in very large 
degree from a gainful worker count because most have no firm occu- 
pational attachment or stable and regular labour force commitment. 
The gainful worker count, as has been emphasized, is centred on 
occupational attachment and on habitual or regular activity. 

A fifth group, which was also considered (and whose omission from 
the conversion procedure requires some explanation) was that of the 
recently retired male. As was noted above, in the pre- 1951 censuses the 
enumerators were instructed not to report occupations for persons who, 
because of old age or physical disability, were no longer following a 
gainful occupation. But the census schedule asked only for the individual's 
occupation and it is not unlikely that some enumerators failed to probe 
sufficiently to determine whether the person had in fact recently retired 
and was no longer pursuing a gainful occupation at the time of the census. 1 
The number of females of this type is unlikely to have been large, but it 
is probable that the gainful worker count somewhat overstated the numbers 
of older males. On the other hand, the 1951 Census recorded 8,492 males 
"retired or voluntarily idle", whose secondary activity during the census 
week was working. No doubt some of these men, doing odd jobs or working 
part-time, would not have been "picked up" in a gainful worker count and 
for this reason the gainfully occupied measure in some degree understated 
the numbers of older male workers. In the absence of the information 
necessary to estimate either the numbers of older males incorrectly included 
or the numbers wrongfully excluded in the gainful worker figures the 
assumption was made that these two roughly balanced each other and 
therefore no adjustment was made for this particular group. 

The numbers of persons in each of the four selected "marginal" 
categories— the "adjustment groups"— are shown in Table 1. A detailed 
description of their estimation is provided in Appendix A. It will be noted 
from Table 1 that the adjustment groups are considerably larger for females 
than males. Indeed, the adjustment group for prime-age males (35—64 years) 
is negligible. 

The derivation of the ratios to be used in converting the gainful 
worker data from the pre-1951 censuses is shown in Table 2. The "total 



Cf. United States Bureau of Census, Estimates of Labour Force, Employment and 
Unemployment in the United States, 1940 end 1930, Washington, 1944, p. 11: "The group 
enumerated as gainful workers in the 1930 Census included a considerable number of persons 
who had recently retired or become disabled or who, for other reasons, had permanently 
withdrawn from the labor force." For Canada, however, see Instructions to Commissioners 
and Enumerators regarding the retired in 1931 (p. 35) and 1941 (p. 48). The likelihood of 
overstatement from this source in these years would not be large. 

13 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 

adjustment" for each age-sex group in 1951 (column 2) was subtracted 
from the relevant 1951 Census labour force total (column 1) to yield the 
1951 gainfully occupied estimate (column 3). The June 1951 Labour Force 
Survey estimates (column 4) were then expressed as ratios to the gainful 
worker counts to yield- the conversion ratios (column 5). Again, it will 
be noted that the adjustments implied by these ratios are in general much 
smaller for males than females— less than one percentage point overall 
for males as compared with over 12 per cent for females. For male teen- 
agers, however, the adjustment was almost 12 per cent, although even 
here it was exceeded by an adjustment of more than 22 percent for teen-age 
girls. 

The last step in estimating the historical series of labour force 
statistics was the application of the conversion ratios to the census 
gainful worker counts for 1921, 1931 and 1941 to provide the decennial 
estimates of the labour force, by age and sex, shown in Tables 3-5. 
It should be noted that, wherever necessary, all estimates have been 
adjusted to include residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, 
members of the Armed Services and Indians living on reserves. (In the 
case of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, a proportionate adjustment 
was made, based on population; in the other two cases, use was made of 
available specific census data.) All estimates for census dates before 1951 
exclude Newfoundland. For 1951 and 1961, estimates are provided both 
with and without Newfoundland in order to facilitate comparisons with the 
earlier dates. 

Finally, although an analysis of trends in labour force participation 
is beyond the scope of the present study (this and related matters are 
treated in separate studies in this Series) some implications of the revised 
estimates, relevant to such analysis, are worthy of mention. Two of the 
most important developments in labour force activity which occurred 
during this period were the decline in participation of teen-age males 
(largely as a consequence of extended education) and the rise in partici- 
pation of women, especially middle-aged and older married women. However, 
as may be seen in Tables 3-5, the participation rates based on gainful 
worker statistics are considerably lower than those based on labour force 
estimates for teen-age males and also for females of all ages. Thus an 
analysis of trends based on the unrevised data (i.e., the census gainful 
worker counts for 1921, 1931 and 1941) would tend to understate the 
decline in teen-age male labour force activity over the forty-year period 
between 1921 and 1961 and, although to a less serious degree, to overstate 
the rise in female labour force activity over the same period. The effect of 
revision on the overall activity rate, however, is minor. 

14 



3. Estimates of the Labour Force 
by Sex, 1901 and 1911 

The absence of sufficient age detail for the gainfully occupied 
population in the 1901 and 1911 Censuses precluded the use of the adjust- 
ment ratios described in the foregoing discussion. The best that could be 
done was to estimate, from the census gainful worker counts for males and 
females, the total labour force, by sex, in 1901 and 1911. This was done 
separately for each sex by reweighting the 1921 participation rates accord- 
ing to the population age distributions in 1901 and 1911 and using the 
overall ratios of reweighted labour force rates to reweighted gainfully 
occupied rates as correction factors to adjust the actual gainfully occupied 
figures derived from the censuses of these two years. 

As may be seen, this method adjusts for the change in age compo- 
sition of the male and female population in 1901 and 1911 but otherwise 
assumes that the relationship between the labour force and the gainfully 
occupied in each of those years was the same as that in 1921 (and, hence, 
in 1951). This method of adjustment, then, is consistent with that utilized 
in the derivation of the estimates for 1921, 1931 and 1941. 

The labour force estimates for 1901 and 1911 are presented in Table 
10, together with two sets (gainful worker and labour force) of participation 
rates. Again it may be seen that the participation rates based on unrevised 
(gainful worker) data are lower than the labour force rates, more so for 
females than for males. 



15 



4. Estimates of the Total 
Labour Force, 1851-1891 



Estimates of the total labour force have also been made for the 
period 1851-91 (Table 11). For 1881 and 1891 the estimates are based on 
actual census counts of the gainfully occupied. The 1891 count was 
adjusted by applying the 1901 ratio of labour force to gainfully occupied 
separately for each sex and combining the results. The 1881 count was 
then adjusted on the basis of the 1891 ratio for both sexes combined. 

The estimates for the earlier dates were obtained by a different 
method, there being no acceptable gainfully occupied totals to work with 
for the period before 1881. (The actual gainfully occupied counts from the 
1871 Census were not used because of incompleteness of coverage and 
doubts as to their accuracy.) Ratios of labour force to population for 
individual age-sex groups were constructed on the basis of data for 1921, 
the earliest date for which the necessary age-sex detail was available. 
These ratios were applied to the actual census population figures in 
each age-sex group and the results summed over all groups. In this way, 
a preliminary labour force series was constructed for each census year in 
the period 1851-81. This series was then used as an index to "project 
backwards" the 1881 "benchmark" total obtained previously to 1871, 
186 land 1851. 



17 



Tables I-II 



19 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 



Table 1 - Adjustment Groups for Use in Estimating 1951 Gainfully 
Occupied by Age and Sex 

NOTE.— New seekers, students and female unpaid family workers in agriculture are based 

« «■-« -J ..!.••_< 1 ,n.r-. *"• -„ e ., 1H rin*n 171,*. ...a <- f nr tarn olo noff.tlmil WOfkefS in nOIl- 



NOTE.— New seekers, students and female unpaid tamiiy workers in agricum. 

published or unpublished 1951 Census data. Figures for female part-time worl 
■icultural industry are based on published and unpublished 1951 Census and J 
bour Force Survey data. Residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are 



Labour Force Survey d 
throughout 



- j'une 195 1 
are excluded 



Sex and age 
group 


New 
seekers 


Students 

whose 

secondary 

activity 

during 

census 

week was 

working 


Female 

unpaid 

family 

workers in 

agriculture 


Female 
part-time 
workers 
in non- 
agricultural 
industry 


Total 
adjust- 
ment 


Men- 

14-19 

20-24 


No. 

7,810 
906 


No. 

13,528 

2,635 

912 

66 


No. 


No. 


No. 

21,338 
3,541 


25-34 


912 


35-64 


66 


65 and over 








Totals, 14 and over . 


8,716 


17,141 






25,857 


Women— 

14-19 

20-24 


3,976 
456 


- 


2,334 

4,181 

7,861 

340 


27,750 
18,400 
17,246 
31,148 
3,769 


31,726 
21,190 


25-34 


21,427 


35-64 

65 and over 


39,009 
4,109 






Totals, 14 and over . 


4,432 


- 


14,716 


98,313 


117,461 


Both Sexes- 
Totals, 14 and over . 


13,148 


17,141 


14,716 


98,313 


143,318 



20 



Table 2 - Calculation of Conversion Ratios, by Age and Sex f Based 

on 1951 Data 

NOTE.— Total adjustment figures are reproduced from the last column of Table 1. Other 
figures are based on published and unpublished 1951 Census and June 1951 Labour Force 
Survey data. Residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are excluded; members of the 
Armed Services and Indians living on reserves are included. 



Sex and age 
group 


Labour 
force 
based 

on 
Census 

(1) 


Total 
adjust- 
ment 

(2) 


Estimate of 
gainfully 
occupied 

(3)=(l)-(2) 


Labour 

force 

based on 

Labour 

Force 

Survey 

(4) 


Conversion 
ratio 

(5)=(4)-(3) 


Men- 

14-19 

20-24 


'000 

322 

499 

1,031 

2.092 

213 


'000 

21 
4 
1 


"000 

301 

495 

1,030 

2,092 

213 


'000 

336 

496 

1,030 

2,085 

209 


1.116 
1.002 


25-34 


1.000 


35-64 


0.997 


65 and over 


0.981 






Totals, 14 and over . 


4,157 


26 


4,131 


4,156 


1.006 


Women— 

14-19 

20-24 


203 
260 
270 
416 
27 


32 
21 
21 
39 
4 


171 
239 
249 
377 
23 


209 
267 
278 
412 
23 


1.222 
1.117 


25-34 


1.116 


35-64 


1*93 


65 and over 


1.000 






Totals, 14 and over . 


1,176 


117 


1.059 


1,189 


1.123 


Both Sexes- 
Totals, 14 and over . 


5,333 


143 


5,190 


5,345 


1.030 



21 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 



Table 3 - Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Age 
and Sex, 1921 (excluding Newfoundland) 

NOTE.— Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the 
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed 
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions. 



Sex and age 
group 


Population 


Gainfully 
occupied 


Labour 
force 


Participation rate 


Gainfully 


Labour 










occupied 


force 




'000 


•ooo 


'000 


% 


% 


Men- 












10-13 


371 
488 


8 
299 


8 
334 


2-2 
61.3 


2.2 


14-19 


68.4 


20-24 


349 


328 


329 


94.0 


94.3 


25-34 


687 

1,323 

208 


673 

1,286 

127 


673 

1.282 

124 


98.0 
97.2 
61-1 


98-0 


35-64 


96.9 


65 and over 


59-6 






Totals, 10 and over 


3,426 


2.721 


2.750 


79-4 


80.3 


Totals, 14 and over 


3,055 


2.713 


2.742 


88.8 


89.8 


Women— 












10-13 


364 
483 
359 
647 
1,133 
198 


1 
117 
128 
113 
124 
13 


1 
143 
143 
126 
136 
13 


0.3 
24.2 
35.7 
17-5 
10.9 

6.6 


0.3 


14-19 


29-6 


20-24 


39.8 


25-34 


19.5 


35-64 


12.0 




6.6 






Totals', 10 and over 


3,184 


496 


562 


15.6 


17.7 


Totals, 14 and over 


2.820 


495 


561 


17-6 


19.9 


Both Sexes- 












Totals, 10 and over 


6.610 


3,217 


3,312 


48.7 


50-1 


Totals, 14 and over 


5,875 


3,208 


3,303 


54-6 


56-2 



22 



Table 4 - Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Age 
and Sex, 1931 (excluding Newfoundland) 

NOTE.— Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the 
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed 
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions. 



Sex and age 
group 


Population 


Gainfully 
occupied 


Labour 
force 


Participation rate 


Gainfully 
occupied 


Labour 
force 


Men- 

10-13 


"000 

431 
627 
459 
771 
1,633 
285 


'000 

5 
323 
430 
760 
1,584 
164 


•ooo 

5 
360 
431 
760 
1,579 
161 


% 

1.2 
51.5 
93.7 
98-6 
97-0 
57.5 


% 
1.2 


14-19 


57-4 


20-24 


93-9 


25-34 


98.6 


35-64 


96.7 


65 and over 


56.5 






Totals, 10 and over 
Totals, 14 and over 


4,206 
3,775 


3.266 
3,261 


3,296 
3,291 


77.6 
86.4 


78.4 
87.2 


Women- 

10-13 


423 
616 
445 
713 
1,406 
272 


1 
133 
189 
156 
170 
17 


1 
163 
211 
174 
186 
17 


0-2 
21-6 
42-5 
21.9 
12.1 

6.2 


0.2 


14-19 


26.5 


20-24 


47.4 


25-34 


24.4 


35-64 


13.2 




6.2 






Totals, 10 and over 
Totals, 14 and over 


3,875 
3,452 


666 
665 


752 
751 


17-2 
19-3 


19.4 
21-8 


Both Sexes- 
Totals, 10 and over 
Totals, 14 and over 


8,081 
7,227 


3,932 
3,926 


4,048 
4,042 


48.7 
54-3 


50.1 
55.9 



23 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 



Table 5 - Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Age 
and Sex, 1941 (excluding Newfoundland) 

NOTE. -Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the 
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed 
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions. 



Sex and age 
group 


Population 


Gainfully 
occupied 


Labour 
force 


Participation rate 


Gainfully 
occupied 


Labour 
force 


Men- 

14-19 


'000 

672 
513 
911 
1,864 
378 


'000 

329 
474 
899 
1,796 
185 


•000 

367 
475 
899 
1,791 
181 


% 

49.0 
92-4 
98-7 
96-4 
48.9 


% 
54-6 


20-24 


92-6 


25-34 


98.7 


35-64 


96-1 




47-9 






Totals, 14 and over . 


4,338 


3,683 


3,713 


84-9 


85.6 


Women- 

14-19 


661 
512 
886 
1,674 
364 


145 
215 
221 
232 
21 


177 
240 
247 
254 
21 


21.9 
42-0 
24-9 
13.9 
5.8 


26-8 


20-24 


46-9 


25-34 


27.9 


35-64 


15-2 




5-8 






Totals, 14 and over . 


. 4,097 


834 


939 


20.4 


22.9 


Both Sexes- 
Totals, 14 and over . 


8,435 


4,517 


4,652 


53-6 


. 55-2 



24 



Table 6 - Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1951 
(excluding Newfoundland) 

NOTE.— Wherever necessary; all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the 
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed 
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions. 



Sex and age 
group 


Population 


Labour 
force 


Labour 

force 

participation 

rate 


Men- 

14-19 


'000 

613 
517 
1,028 
2,155 
917 
702 
536 
522 


'000 

329 
487 
1,010 
2,047 
905 
679 
463 
206 


% 
53-7 


20-24 


94.2 


25-34 


98-2 


35-64 


95.O 


35-44 


98.7 


45-54 


96.7 


55-64 '. 


36.4 


65 and over 


39-5 






Totals, 14 and over 


4,835 


4,079 


84.4 . 


Women— 

14-19 


611 
535 
1,080 
2,059 
895 
660 
504 
507 


206 
261 
274 
407 
200 
139 
68 
23 


33.7 


20-24 


48. 8 


25-34 


25.4 


35-64 


19.8 


35-44 


22-3 


45-54 


21.1 
13.5 


55-64 


65 and over 


4.5 






Totals, 14 and over 


4,792 


1,171 


24.4 


Both Sexes- 
Totals, 14 and over 


9,627 


5,250 


54-5 



25 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 

Table 7 - Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1961 
(excluding Newfoundland) 

NOTE.— Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the 
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed 
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions. 



Sex and age 
group 


Population 


Labour 
force 


Labour 

force 

participation 

rate 


Men- 

14-19 

14 


'000 

869 

167 

304 

398 

567 

1,221 

2,716 

1,155 

929 

632 

633 

229 

404 


'000 

353 

16 

77 

260 

535 

1,202 

2.588 

1,135 

898 

555 

194 

120 

74 


% 

40.6 
9-6 


15-16 


25-3 


17-19 

20-24 

25-34 


65.3 
94-4 
98>4 


35-64 


95-3 


35-44 


98.3 


45-54 

55-64 


96.7 
87.8 


65 and over 


30.6 


70 and over 


52.4 
18.3 








6,006 


4,872 


81-1 


Women— 

14-19 


837 

160 

291 

386 

580 

1,192 

2,682 

1,170 

896 

616 

671 

238 

433 


265 

8 

48 

209 

294 

348 

801 

365 

294 

142 

41 

24 

17 


31.7 


14 

15-16 


5.0 
16.5 


17-19 


54.1 


20-24 

25-34 


50-7 
29-2 


35-64 


29.9 


45-54 


31.2 
32-8 


55-64 

65 and over 


23.1 
6.1 


65-69 


10-1 




3.9 








5,962 


1,749 


29.3 


Both Sexes- 


11,968 


6,621 


55-3 



26 



Table 8 - Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1951 
(including Newfoundland) 

NOTE.— Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the 
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members' of the Armed 
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions. 



Sex and age 
group 



Population 



Labour 
force 



Labour 

force 

participation 

rate 



Men- 

14-19 

20-24 

25-34 

35-64 

35-44 

45-54 

55-64 

65 and over 

Totals, 14 and over 

Women— 

14-19 

20-24 

25-34 

35-64 

35-44 

45-54 

55-64 

65 and over 

Totals, 14 and over 

Both Sexes- 
Totals, 14 and over 



'000 

632 
530 
1,054 
2,202 
939 
717 
546 
534 



4,952 



629 
549 
1,104 
2,101 
914 
673 
514 
518 



4.901 



'000 

338 
498 
1,034 
2,088 
925 
692 
471 
209 



4,167 



210 
266 
277 
412 
202 
141 
69 
23 



1,188 



53.5 
94.0 
98.1 
94.8 
98.5 
96.5 
86.3 
39.1 



84.1 



33-4 
48.5 
25.1 
19.6 
22.1 
21.0 
13.4 
4.4 



24.2 



9,853 



5,355 



54.3 



27 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 



Table 9 - Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1961 
(including Newfoundland) 

NOTE.— Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the 
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed 
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions. 



Sex and age 
group 



Population 



Labour 
force 



Labour 

force 

participation 

rate 



Men- 

14-19 

14 

15-16 

17-19 

20-24 

25-34 

35-64 

35-44 

45-54 

55-64 . 

65 and over 

65-69 

70 and over 

Totals, 14 and over 

Women— 

14-19 

14 

15-16 

17-19 

20-24 

25-34 

35-64 

35-44 

45-54 

55-64 

65 and over , 

65-69 

70 and over 

Totals, 14 and over 

Both Sexes- 
Totals, 14 and over 



'000 

896 

172 

314 

410 

582 

1,248 

2,774 

1,181 

949 

644 

647 

234 

413 



6,147 



865 

165 

301 

399 

595 

1,218 

2,735 

1,193 

914 

628 

684 

243 

441 



6,097 



'000 

363 

16 

79 

268 

548 

1,223 

2,636 

1,157 

915 

564 

197 

122 

75 



4,967 



274 

8 

50 

216 

300 

352 

807 

367 

297 

143 

41 

24 

17 



1,774 



% 

40.5 
9.3 
25-2 
65.4 
94.2 
98.0 
95.0 
98.0 
96.4 
87.6 
30.4 
52.1 
18.2 



80.8 



31.7 

4.8 

16.6 

54.1 

50.4 

28.9 

29.5 

30.8 

32.5 

22.8 

6.0 

9.9 

3.9 



29.1 



12,244 



6.741 



55.1 



28 



Table 10 - Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Sex, 
1901 and 1911 (excluding Newfoundland) 

NOTE.— Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the 
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed 
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions. 





Population 


Gainfully 
occupied 


Labour 
force 


Participation rate 


Year and sex 


Gainfully 
occupied 


Lab our 
force 


Persons 10 years of age 
and over— 

Both sexes . . . 
1911 Men 


'000 

2,066 
1,957 
4,023 

2,913 
2,521 
5,434 

1,829 
1,729 
3,558 

2,629 
2,245 
4,874 


'000 

1,598 

244 

1,842 

2,366 

366 

2,732 

1,586 

242 

1,828 

2,357 

365 

2,722 


'000 

1,618 

281 

1,899 

2,390 

419 

2,809 

1,606 

279 

1,885 

2,381 

418 

2,799 


% 

77-3 
12.5 
45.8 

81.2 
14.5 
50.3 

86.7 
14-0 
51.4 

89.7 
16-3 
55.8 


% 

78.3 
14.4 
47.2 

82.0 


Both sexes . . . 

Persons 14 years of age 
and over- 

1901 Men 


16-6 
51.7 

87.8 


Both sexes . . . 
1911 Men 


16.1 
53.0 

90.6 


Both sexes . . . 


18.6 
57.4 



Table 11 - Total Labour Force, 1851 - 1961 
(excluding Newfoundland) 

NOTE.— Implicitly or explicitly, all figures have been adjusted (wherever necessary) to 
include residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and 
members of the Armed Services. 



Year 


Thousands 
of persons 


Year 


Thousands 
of persons 


1851 


762 
1,053 
1,201 
1,474 
1,732 
1,899 


1911 


2,809 
3,312 
4,048 
4,652 
5,250 
6,621 


1861 


1921 


1871 


1931 

1941 


1881 


1891 


1951 


1901 


1961 







29 



Appendices A-D 



31 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 

A. ESTIMATION OF ADJUSTMENT GROUPS 

While general reference is made in Table 1 to the sources of informa- 
tion for the estimates of the adjustment groups, a further note of explana- 
tion on the method of estimation is required. Each of the four "marginal" 
groups are treated separately. 

(1) New Seekers: The 1951 Census recorded the numbers of "persons who 
have never worked and were seeking work", classified by age and sex. 
Since this information was not available from the June 1951 Labour 
Force Survey, it was necessary to use the census data but only for 
persons 14-24 years of age. The very small numbers of "new seekers" 
aged 25 and over were omitted from the estimates. 

(2) Male Students: The 1951 Census recorded 17,141 males whose principal 
activity for the week ending June 2, 1951 was "going to school" but 
whose secondary activity during that week was "working". (This 
information was not available from Survey tabulations.) The age dis- 
tribution of these students was secured from unpublished data provided 
by the Census Division of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. 

(3) Female Unpaid Family Workers in Agriculture: As noted previously, 
in order to adjust a labour force total to a gainful worker count, it is 
necessary to subtract some, but not all, of the female unpaid family 
workers from the total female agricultural labour force. The problem of 
estimating this adjustment group, then, consists of determining what 
proportion of the female agricultural labour force should be excluded in 
each of the age categories shown in Table 1. 

The June 1951 Labour Force Survey recorded a total of 80,000 female 
"no pays" in agriculture; no age detail was published nor is it 
available from unpublished data. In order to utilize this Survey figure 
for our purposes, it would have been necessary, therefore, first to 
estimate the age distribution of these persons and then to estimate the 
proportion, within each age category, who would have been missed in a 
gainful worker count. Rather than follow this procedure, it was decided 
instead to use the 1951 Census data on female unpaid family workers in 
agriculture. The Census recorded 18,166 such females, 1 considerably 

'An unpublished tabulation from the 1951 Census showed 27,325 women, in agricul- 
tural occupations, whose primary activity was keeping house, going to school, retired, etc., 
but whose secondary activity was "working". Of these, 11,907 were classified as unpaid 
family workers. It might be argued that this latter figure best represents the group of women 
who would be excluded from a gainful worker count. But taking into consideration the very 
strong evidence suggesting that the 1951 Census failed, by a wide margin, to enumerate all 
the female unpaid family workers on farms (see Study on Occupations in this series), 
it was felt that a figure of approximately 12,000 workers was too low and the adjustment 
was therefore based on the total number of female "no pays" in agriculture, excluding the 
14_19 year olds for reasons explained in the text. 

32 



APPENDIX A 

fewer than the comparable Labour Force Survey figure. The census 
figure, therefore, ■ lies between the two extreme estimates of female 
"no pays"-that of the gainfully occupied, at the lower end, and the 
Labour Force Survey, at the upper. For this reason, and because age 
detail was provided, the census data were used for adjustment purposes 
for females aged 20 and over. No adjustment was made for women of 
14—19 because observation of earlier censuses revealed that, in 
relative terms, considerably more female unpaid family farm workers 
in this age group were recorded than in the 1951 Census. 1 For this 
age group, then, the census labour force count was assumed to be 
approximately identical to that which would have been obtained with a 
gainfully occupied criterion. 

(4) Female Part-Time Workers in Non-Agricultural Industry: Women who 
work on an intermittent or part-time basis would probably be counted 
as housewives in a gainful worker enumeration, although in a labour 
force survey they should, if they worked even for a few hours or sought 
work during the week, be recorded as members of the current labour 
force. No direct information on this category of workers was available 
from either the 1951 Census or the June Survey. The estimates shown 
in the fourth column of Table 1 were derived from a number of different 
Census and Survey sources in the following manner. 

The 1951 Census provided an (unpublished) figure for the total number 
of females in the non-agricultural labour force who worked one to 34 hours 
during the census reference week— 119,748 women. This figure represents 
the part-time female work force in non-agricultural industries, i.e., women 
who actually worked less than 35 hours during the reference week, but it 
is larger than the "voluntary" part-time work force, i.e., women who 
usually work less than 35 hours per week. It was the voluntary part-time 
work force which was considered more appropriate for adjustment purposes. 
Thus a ratio of the voluntary to the actual part-time female work force 
(in non-agricultural industries) was estimated from (unpublished) Survey 
data, 2 and this ratio was used to "deflate" the Census estimate (referred 



The 1951 Census recorded 3,827 teen-age girls in the unpaid family worker category 
in agriculture. If, for example, the 1941 Census ratio of female "no pays" to female "paid" 
employment in agriculture (i.e., total female employment in agriculture minus "no pays") 
is applied to the 1951 Census paid-employment figure, the resulting number is 4,561, 
which is almost 207« higher than the number of female teen-age unpaid family workers on 
farms actually recorded. 

2 
Because the requisite data on the voluntary and actual part-time labour force were not 

available from either the 1951 Census or the June Survey, there was no alternative 

except to use (unpublished) statistics from Labour Force Surveys subsequent to 1951. 

An average ratio was calculated based on May-June estimates for a number of selected 

postwar years. 



33 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 

to above) from 119,748 to 98,313 females (fourth column of Table 1). This 
total was then distributed by age in accordance with the age distribution of 
female wage earners who reported earnings of less than $500 in the 1951 
Census. 



34 



APPENDIX B 

B. THE REVISED UNITED STATES LABOUR FORCE DEFINITION 

In January 1967 the United States Department of Labor introduced 
revised definitions of employment and unemployment which are intended to 
"clear up several ambiguities and uncertainties in the [concept]" (News 
Release, U.S. Department of Labor, November 22, 1966). The changes 
which centred on the definition of the unemployed and, in particular, the 
treatment of the "inactive seekers", were in line with the basic recom- 
mendations of the President's Committee to Appraise Employment and 
Unemployment Statistics (the Gordon Committee) as set out in the 1962 
Report of that Committee. The definitional changes were adopted following 
a three-year experimental program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 
co-operation with the Bureau of the Census, designed to test a number of 
conceptual variants. A separate experimental sample was utilized for this 
purpose. 

The principal changes in definition relevant to this present discussion 
were: 

(1) "To be counted as unemployed a person must have engaged in some 
specific job-seeking activity (going to the Employment Service, applying 
to an employer, answering a want-ad. etc.) within the past four weeks. 
(An exception is made for persons waiting to start a new job in thirty 
days or waiting to be recalled from layoff.) 

(2) "To be counted as unemployed, an individual must be currently 
available for work. In the past, the test of current availability was not 
applied. A high-school or college student, for example, who began to 
look for summer work in April was counted as unemployed in that month 
even though he didn't desire to work until the beginning of vacation in 
June. 

(3) "Persons will be classified as employed, even though they were absent 
from their jobs in the survey week and looking for other jobs. Up to now 
persons absent from their jobs because of strikes, bad weather, etc., 
who were looking for other jobs were classified as unemployed." 

The first of these changes has the effect of extending the "activity" 
criterion to cover a group which, as we have seen, was formerly exempt 
from its application— the "inactive seekers". It should be noted, however, 
that the definition of "current" has also been changed; the reference 
period of one week, which applies to all other categories of the labour 
force, is extended to four weeks in the case of the "inactive seekers". 

The second change introduces a new criterion into the labour force 
definition— "current availability for work". It is impossible, in the absence 
of detailed information about the experimental procedure and results, to 
judge whether this new criterion enhances the operational feasibility of the 



35 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 

unemployment definition. It does, however, as Commissioner of Labor 
Statistics Arthur Ross has stated, clarify the definition in the sense of 
making it "more consistent with public understanding of the term". It is 
important to note the effect of this change is that the criterion of "current 
availability" supersedes that of "current activity" in determining the 
labour force status of certain groups in the population, in particular 
students and other new entrants. 

Finally, the third change— classifying as employed job-holders who 
had not worked but had looked for work— is a straightforward rejection of 
the activity criterion in favour of the criterion (newly resurrected) of job 
attachment. 

In summary, then, the new definition of the economically active 
adopted in the United States in January 1967 involves both a significant 
extension and a significant restriction of the "activity" criterion. 



36 



APPENDIX C 



C. DECENNIAL CENSUS QUESTIONS, 1871-1961 

Presented in this Appendix are the questions relating to economic 
activity which were asked in each of the decennial censuses from 1871 to 
1961. (So as to present these questions in their proper context, some of the 
other questions asked are also included.) In all cases the questions are 
presented more or less as they were worded, and for the 1951 and 1961 
Censuses the relevant portions of the questionnaires are reproduced as 
they actually appeared. 

The 1871-1941 questions are based on unpublished summary material 
provided by the Census Division of DBS. 



1871 CENSUS OF CANADA 



Numbered 
in the order 

of 
visitation 
12 3 4 5 6 



Names 



Sex 



Age 



Born 


Country 


in 


or 


last 


province 


12 


of 


months 


birth 



Religion 



Origin 



Profession, 

occupation 

or trade 



Married 

or 
widowed 



Married 

within 

last 

12 

months 



Instruction 



Going 

to 
school 



Over 20 

unable 

to 

read 



Over 20 
unable 

to 
write 



Infirmities 



Deaf 

and 

dumb 



Blind 



Unsound 
mind 



Date of 
operation 

and 
remarks 



37 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 



1881 CENSUS OF CANADA 



Numbered 
in the order 

of 
visitation 



Names 



Sex 



Age 



Born 


Country 


within 


or 


last 


place 


12 


of 


months 


birth 



Religion 



Origin 



Profession, 

occupation 

or trade 



Married 

or 
widowed 



Instruction 



Going to school 



Infirmities 



Deaf, dumb 



Blind 



Unsound mind 



Dates of 

operation, 

remarks 



38 



APPENDIX C 



1891 CENSUS OF CANADA 



Numbered 
in order of 
visitation 



Names 



Sex 



Age 



Married 

or 
widowed 



Relation 
to head 

of 
family 



Country 

or 
province 
of birth 



French 
Canadian 



Place 

of 
birth, 
father 



Place 
of birth, 
mother 



Religion 



Profession, 

occupation 

or trade 



Employers 



Wage 
earners 



Unemployed 

during week 

preceding 

census 



Number 

employed 

during 

year 



Instruction 


Infirmities 


Read 


Write 


Deaf, dumb 


Blind 


Unsound mind 













39 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 



1901 CENSUS OF CANADA 



Numbered 
in order of 
visitation 


Names 


Sex 


Colour 


Relationship 

to 

head 


Marital 
status 


Month 
and 
date 

of 
birth 


Year 

of 
birth 


Age 


Dwelling 
House 


Family or 
household 

























Country or place 
of birth 
(if in Canada 
specify Pro- 
vince or 
Territory and 
add "r" or "u" 
for rural or 
urban as the 
case may be) 



Year of 

immigration 

to Canada 



Year of 
natural- 
ization 



Racial 
origin 



Nation- 
ality 



Religion 



Profession 
and trade 



Profession or 

trade (if person 

has retired from 

prof, or trade 

add "r" for 

retired) 



40 



APPENDIX C 



1901 CENSUS OF CANADA-concluded 



Profession and trade (concl.) 


Wage-earner 


Own 
means 


Employer 


Employee 


Own 
account 


Work home or 

factory (specify 

by "f" for 

factory and 

"h" for home 

or both as the 

case may be) 


Months 

employed 

at 

trade 


At 
home 


At 
factory 



















Wage-earner (concl.) 


Education and language 


Infirmities 

a. Deaf and 
dumb 

b. Blind 

c. Unsound 
mind 


Earnings 


Extra 
earnings 


Months 

in 
school 


Read 


Write 


English 


French 


Mother 
tongue 

(if 
spoken) 





















41 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 



1911 CENSUS OF CANADA 



Profession, occupation, trade or means of living 



Chief 

occupation 

or 

trade 



Employment 
other than 

at chief 
occupation 

or trade 



Employer 



Employee 



Working 

on 

own 

account 



Wage — earners 



State where 

person is 
employed as 
"on farm", 
"in woollen 

mill", 

"at foundry 

shop", "in 

drug store", 

etc. 



Weeks 
employed 
in 1910 
at chief 
occupa- 
tion 
or trade 



Weeks 
employed 
in 1910 
at other 
than chief 
occupa- 
tion 
or trade, 
if any 



Hours of 
working 
time per 
week at 

chief 
occupa- 
tion 



Hours of 
working 
time per 
week at 

other 
occupa- 
tion, 
if any 



Total 
earnings 
in 1910 
from 
chief 
occupa- 
tion 
or trade 



Total 
earnings 
in 1910 
from other 
than chief 
occupa- 
tion 
or trade, 
if any 



Rate 

of 

earnings 

per 

hour when 

employed 

by the 

hour, 

in cents 



42 



APPENDIX C 



1921 CENSUS OF CANADA 



Profession, occupation, and employment 



Chief occupation or 

trade 

(Be specific, give as 

definite information 

as possible) 



Employer "E' 

Employee or 
worker "W" 

Working on 
own account 
"O.A." 



(a) If "Employer" state 
principal product 

(b) If "Employee" state 
where employed, 

as "farm", "cotton mill", 
"foundry", "grocery", etc. 

(c) If on "own account" 
state nature of work 



Profession, occupation, and employment (concl.) 



Total 

earnings 

in past 

12 months 

(since June 1, 

1920) 



If 

employee, 

were you out 

of work 
June 1, 1921? 



Number of weeks 

unemployed 

in the past 

12 months 

(since June 1, 

1920) 



Number of 

weeks 
unemployed 
since June 1, 
1920 because 

of illness 



43 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 



1931 CENSUS OF CANADA 



Occupation and Industry 



Occupation 

Trade, profession 

or particular 

kind of work, 

as carpenter, 

weaver, sawyer, 

merchant, farmer, 

salesman, teacher, 

etc. (Give as 

definite and 

precise information 

as possible.) 


Industry 

Industry or 

business in 

which engaged 

or employed, 

as cotton mill, 

brass foundry, 

grocery, coal 

mine, dairy farm, 

public school, 

business college, 

etc. 


Class 

of 
Worker 


Total 

earnings in 

the past 

twelve months 

(since June 1, 

1930) 













Unemployment 






If answer 


- 






to previous 








question is 




Of the total number 




NO, why were 


Total 


of weeks reported 
out of work in [pre- 
vious] column, how 




you not at 


number 


If an employee, 


work on Monday, 


of weeks 


were you at 


June 1, 1931? 


unemployed 


many were due to — 


work 


(For example, no 


from any 


No job 


Monday, June 1, 


job, sick. 


cause in 


Illness 


1931? 


accident, on 


the last 


Accident 




holidays, 


12 months 


Strike or lock-out 




strike or lock-out, 




Temporary lay-off 




plant closed, 

no materials, 

etc.) 




Other causes 











44 



APPENDIX C 



1941 CENSUS OF CANADA 



Occupation, Industry and Status 



Occupation 


Industry 


Status 


Trade or 

profession, as 

stationary 

engineer, insurance 

agent, etc. 


Give kind of product made or dealt 

in or service rendered, and 

branch of industry 


Employer, own 
account, wage-earner 


Kind of product or 

service, as for 

example, rubber 

shoes, drugs, etc. 


Branch of industry, 

as for example, 

manufacturing, 

retail trade, etc. 


or unpaid family 
worker 











Occupational 
Trend 


Unemployment 


Employment and Earnings 
(For wage-earners only) 


What was your 
occupation in 1931? 
(This question refers 

only to persons 25 
years of age and over) 


If a wage-earner, 
were you at 

work on June 2, 

1941? 

(Yes or No) 


If not, 

give 

reason 


Number of weeks worked and 

total earnings during 12 
months prior to June 2, 1941 


Weeks employed 

including paid 

holidays and 

time off with 

pay 


Total 

earnings 

in dollars 













45 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 



1951 CENSUS OF CANADA 



Nonvdnooo ivnsn 



o\\ -^ «^ o \ <^ «*), eu ^\ o\\ a>\\ 
o 

I o\\ -V\ w\\ «\\ *\\ *\\ «\' r*\\ eo\\ <*\ 

y - , 

o\\ -\\ «\\ «\\ *\\ ton ©° nV\ »\\ o\\ 



o\\ A\ «\\ «\\ *\\ »\\ «\\ n\\ »,\ »\\ 
> •■■'-•-'•■ 

| o^ A^ w^ b\^ ^ e\\ o^ *Y\ <o\\ oy 



>=- 



tpllOlTiiOll 

S0i010i?0i!0 80l0!0l0! 



lino «oiio M »"a S 



»!*§!§! 



§& 






^»' 



D 10 SO *0 SO 10 ■ 



^ioSlili" 1" FffflTil ! 



« *0 4 4 4 <H) <) 4 4iD i 



rfiiil=i='- 






iSlip. 



'0 JO 50 10 fO |0 10 10 fOifO 



10 4 4 



i 4 i s 



o> 



w 



9 

P: 

il 
ill 
S 8 S 

i|« 

iS 

ill 

Ill 



innpf 



■\ r 



H 



l\ 

!( 



■i 

13 

W 
ii 

3 j 



1 il 

I ! 

lo 



<£. 






■8s:l 

r J «« s 



iilii 



SO 



4 4) -o -o -0 -o 

f i;g gj gi |8 Kn git 



fii|RggTOMHB<l l ,g 0) 



46 



APPENDIX C 



1961 CENSUS OF CANADA 



Questions 16-25 of the Population Questionnaire (Form 2A) 
for all persons 15 years of age and over (as applicable) 



16. Did you hove a job of 
any hind last week ? 
(Even il not at work, or part-time) 



17 Did you look for * 
' lost week ? 



, n Did you have a job at any 
'"time in the post 12 months ? 



'^Number of hours usually 
worked eoch week ? 






If answer is "No" 
to all three questions, 
omit Questions 19-25 



1-19 20-29 30-34 33-39 



41-44 43-49 50+ 



(Omit 

Questions 

* 20-23) 



ZO.For whom did you work 
lost week, (or when you 
last worked) ? 



Nome of turn, gover nm ent ooency.or other employer: 



'What kind of business 
or Industry wos this ? 



% retail orocery.Mto manufacturing, city buillne trorwportotion: 



What kind of work did 
you do in this industry ? 



At salt* clerk, loth* operator, pwrchailng ogent: 



ZS.DId you operate your 

own business or work for 
others In this occupation P 



WORKED FOR OTHERS 
Wage or salary Unpaid family 



OPERATED OWN BUSINESS 
With Without 

paid help » « paid help , 



24 '<> how many weeks did 

you work for woges or 
salary In the post 1 2 months ? 



I-4 | . *-*\ 1 4-26 27 -3 9 4Q-46 49-52 
(Include weeks worked port-time and leave with pay) 



(Omit Question 25) 



23.Whot was your gross wage 
and solory income (before 
deductions) in this period ? 



1,000 2P00 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 IQ.OOQ 11,000 

^ . IQ0 . „ 200 . . 3Q0 . 4 °0 500 600 700 600 900 i" jSjS?f "'S.bb6V ~ 



QUESTION 26 FOR ALL MALES 23 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER 





*26.0id you ever hove ony 

worlime service in the 
octtve military forces of 


In wha 


ward) ? 




Wars prior World War 1 World Wor II 
'01914 11914-18! 11939-43) 


1 


In Korea 
950-531 




None 




In smat forces ? 




Conodioti 


■ ■ Allied ■ • Both 








) 


10 1 


(JUL 

Grand- 
child 

Father or 
mother 

FarM 

Or MStr 
Oor r 

tn-lo> 

Other 
relative 


.0 - - o_ 

.10 1 


_0_ 
.10. 


_0_ 

10 










_0_ _0_ _0. 
.100. _I0_ _ 1 _ 


.100. 


.10. 




20 2 
- 30 . ' 


20 2 
30 3 


20 

30 


20 
30 


30 






£.*%. 


-2°°. _20_ 
_30Q_ _30_ 


. 2 _ 
.3. 


J00_ 
-30Q. 


.20. 
.30. 


_ 2 _ 
_ 3_ 




.40. .4 . 

_ 50 _ .' 
.60. _ 6 _ 


.40. _ 4 _ 
.SO 5 

60 6 


.40. 
.0. 





1 


1 


1 




400_ 40 
-?00_ .50. . 
600 60 


4 
. 3. 

6 


400 

joq. 

600 


40 

.50. 

60 


4 

.5. 

6 


.70 7 

ao 8 


Ledger 

Porhw. 
Emptovee 


70 7 
80 S 


2 
3 


2 

3 


2 
3 


3 


3 




700 70 
800 60 


7 
8 


700 
800 


70 
SO 


7 
8 


_90_ _ 9 _ 
_C00_ ; _200_ 


inmate 


90 9 

.«■ re_.fi ft. 

Primary 


_ 4 . 


. 4 . 


_ 4 _ 


. 4 _ 


_ 4 . 




900 90 


9 


900 


90 


9 


arm- 
place 


Cilirtn- 
Ship 


Origin 


Religion 


Language 


Employ- 
ment 


Industry (Q u es 


21 ] 


Occupation (Ou 






v ■»* 


Femil* Na. 































47 



HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE 



D. LABOUR FORCE SURVEY QUESTIONS 

Reproduced here is the schedule used in the regular monthly Labour 
Force Survey. The version shown is that in use in 1961. However, in 
essential respects the questions asked were the same in 1951 as in 1961. 



1 






10 10 10 



e^l 



oo -o «0 »0 *0 "0 *0 ^0 «»0 H 
on -n «n «n *n u»n «n -n »n «r 



i 
1 





UJ 




X 

e 




DC 
O 

m 

3 







4 



-W4<M 



4«M®H 
4«M°M 
4°H a M 






44^4<A\ 

4«>H o M 



4^»U 
4444 

4<M4 
4444 



44444 

44444 
44444 



ill: 
III? 



■Ss» s S 



gl 5 l ! 



2>SIS?I 









nil 



a St- 



H ) 1 S} |! J8 « 



I i 



10 40 !0 :* 



«U *U "U <°U ^U "U 
«0 *0 «>0 »[' ^0 ffl 



1 » 1 s 



?! ,1 ! I it i 



|5 is a 8 

1 S3 * 



I II 



= i a i R 



10 10 10 fflfflfflfflfflaO 



Cvi" 1 






48 



APPENDIX D 



ic-z waoj~| 



W MMM 


2 T. Make commenti on all vogue, difficult or unusual situations 






hi 


1 

° s Is 

3 * U • 

g £ g 


9.0 

11 1 I 


FOR "W", "L", OR "J" IN OUESTtON 14 OR 15 ASK 
23. For vhcm did this person work *? 


24. INDUSTRY In what kind of business or industry did this 
person work? 


.s 

§ 

£ 

■g 

* 

I 

z 
o 

is; 

1! 

to fi 
csi£ 



5 ill 









49 



Statistics Canada Library 
Hbliotheque StatisUque Canada 



1010022444 



This book was set Varitype, printed Offset and bound 
by the Canadian Government Printing Bureau. The art 
work for the cover was executed by Richard T. Logan, 
Art Director, Dominion Bureau of Statistics.